Eye in the Sky

[Beate]

What an infuriatingly frustrating film.

Yes, I get it, it's much more difficult to pull the trigger when you can see the face of the innocent little girl that is most likely going to be killed as well, as opposed to the 80 or so people whose life you'll be saving, because you can't see their faces and have no connection to them. But they are people too who don't deserve to die. There was an article recently about this in the papers. It's only human to refuse to kill someone as opposed to standing by and doing nothing to see a greater number killed. I wouldn't do it either, it's too much responsibility. But I'm not in the army. Surely, if you are and your job is to be a trained sniper or rocket launcher, then you don't question your orders. You know, we all know that there are always innocent lives lost in a war. We can debate this as much as we like, it's a fact. When did the army become bogged down by so much red tape and politics? If I was that sniper's commander and he lost me my target through questioning and delaying action, I probably would have court marshalled him. And I'm not a cold person. I like cute little girls just like the next person but why was she suddenly more important than anyone else? What about the other people walking along the street? What about that armed guard a few feet away from her? Was it ok for them to be collateral damage? And why on earth hadn't she set up stall in the actual market? She would have been safe then!

Plus, Helen Mirren as an army corporal - really?

[D-Fens]

Yeah, didn't work. I'd have had more empathy if the situation with "I'm the captain now" brought him in to the danger area. Or created an interesting choice.

The girl resold bread that had been dropped on the floor and already pa*d for, I'd have considered making her the primary target and hoping the terrorists got caught in the collateral.

[mupton]

What an infuriatingly frustrating film.

Yes, I get it, it's much more difficult to pull the trigger when you can see the face of the innocent little girl that is most likely going to be killed as well, as opposed to the 80 or so people whose life you'll be saving, because you can't see their faces and have no connection to them. But they are people too who don't deserve to die. There was an article recently about this in the papers. It's only human to refuse to kill someone as opposed to standing by and doing nothing to see a greater number killed. I wouldn't do it either, it's too much responsibility. But I'm not in the army. Surely, if you are and your job is to be a trained sniper or rocket launcher, then you don't question your orders. You know, we all know that there are always innocent lives lost in a war. We can debate this as much as we like, it's a fact. When did the army become bogged down by so much red tape and politics? If I was that sniper's commander and he lost me my target through questioning and delaying action, I probably would have court marshalled him. And I'm not a cold person. I like cute little girls just like the next person but why was she suddenly more important than anyone else? What about the other people walking along the street? What about that armed guard a few feet away from her? Was it ok for them to be collateral damage? And why on earth hadn't she set up stall in the actual market? She would have been safe then!

Plus, Helen Mirren as an army corporal - really?

Following the dialogue of the movie, the American - played by Aaron Paul - was following the rule book - in asking for a reassessment of the part collateral damage. Now whether that true to life or not, I do not know. But what I do know is that individual soldiers are liable under international criminal law (yes include the UK) and the defence that 'I was only following orders' is not enough of a defence to get them off. Following the rule book is. That I do not believe that applies to the US as they refused to sign up to that part of the convention. So yes it was broadly realistic, but it was more of a dramatic device for the film's audience.

So, you do not think a women could be an army corporal? Google and you will find they exist.

[Beate]

Nothing to do with her being a woman, it's to do with her being Helen Mirren. It just felt miscast.

And yes, in my irritation I hadn't even commented on the fact that all that bread had rolled into the dust already and was probably not fit for consumption anymore. So it was the girl that tried bringing harm to people! Good point that. It's always the sweet looking ones, like in Men in Black. I rest my case.

[D-Fens]

Following the images Aaron Paul was clearly using the rule book purely as a delaying tactic as neither of them wanted to pull the trigger, if he was just doing everything by the book and was coldly officious about it all that would have been more interesting and less frustrating as there wasn't a character like that. Everybody was emotional about it?

Which leads to Mirren, whose gender wasn't the problem it just felt like she was in the wrong role. If she swapped with the woman in the boardroom it would have felt more natural.

I wonder if the beetle and hummingbird were true to life? The latter reminded me of Bubo from Clash of the Titans.

[prettyxcool]

A tense and riveting drama of drone warfare. Thought the cast was excellent, Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman (his last film before he died), Aaron Paul and Phoebe Fox. However, wondering how plausible it is to have drone footage so close and so clear? The images shown on the news are often murky and in black and white and you could hardly see who is who. It also seems implausible that the drone operators, do not carry out their orders as trained soldiers, but show they care, and questions the orders. The moral and political debate proves extremely thought provoking too. Tough decision to strike or not strike and the weighing up of "collateral damage", but what about the collateral damage of those in the market and other people walking around, not just the little girl? The director, however, set the scene up really very well, we saw her study hard, playing and selling bread, so tugged at our heartstrings and creating the tension. Fascinating stuff, if you do not over-analyse 8/10

[cliveas]

I take on board some of the criticisms mentioned and pxc's comments with regard to over-analysis; however I thought this was a really good, intelligently scripted film. For every case of lack of realism I'm sure I could find several in the average Hollywood film. Yes it was emotionally manipulative, but far more thoughtfully so than the average US 'issue film' and it didn't duck the issue of collateral damage by having the girl leave in the nick of time (as tends to be the norm). All in all both enjoyable and illustrative of some of the the issues involved.

Helen Mirren as an army corporal - really?

She was a colonel! I've no idea how many women there are in those sort of positions but the character as played by Dame Helen struck the right note as someone who could have made it. And if Dame Judi can be M!

[TimS]

I personally thought Helen Mirren was fairly convincing. I liked that it wasn't a typical action thriller that only relied on cliched action set pieces to create drama but rather focused on the slow build-up of suspense and presumably the very real legal vs moral issues surrounding the use of these types of strikes. I was pleased when they didn't shy away from the girl's death although did feel that they played up to that a little too much- i.e. the only consequence of undertaking this strike was the death of a single girl when there were many other innocent civilians nearby. You also wonder why the two drone operators chose to go into their roles when they seemed completely unable to handle the emotional strain that they should have expected.

[notechal]

I watched it in Exeter and there was not a movement in the audience - all seemed mesmerised by the drones and how they were being utilised.
I had read a dismissive review in the Guardian but I really quite enjoyed it, though recognize its flaws.

[rawsalsa]

I watched it in Exeter and there was not a movement in the audience - all seemed mesmerised by the drones and how they were being utilised.
I had read a dismissive review in the Guardian but I really quite enjoyed it, though recognize its flaws.

The mood was very similar in East Dulwich picturehouse this morning and despite the flaws already mentioned below, I found it compelling. 8/10